The history of libertarian thought should be our guide. Nobody can reasonably pretend that libertarianism spawned out of Rothbard and Nozick during the 70s, thereby ignoring centuries of foundation.
Furthermore, also from Brian Doherty's excellent book, it is clear that the word "libertarian" was meant to replace and exactly be used as the term "liberal" had been used before New Deal progressives hijacked the word away from us.
I’ve heard it claimed numerous times that anarchy is the essence of libertarianism. But consider:
It’s claimed that the essence of libertarianism is anarchy. No evidence is presented for this. It is rightly claimed that anarchists are accepted within libertarianism, but this doesn’t prove its the essence anymore than the acceptance of limited government advocates proves they’re the essence.
Meanwhile, neither FEE nor Reason nor Cato are anarchist organizations. I don’t know any LP presidential nominees who were anarchists. In his book on libertarian history, Brian Dougherty discusses the five thinkers who had the greatest impact on the libertarian movement: Mises, Rand, Hayek, M. Friedman, and Rothbard. Only one was an anarchist. In his book of 65 mini biographies of people who have advanced human liberty, libertarian historian, Jim Powell, included three anarchists. Out of the three women identified as the three furies of libertarianism, none was an anarchist. The man who first used the term libertarianism for the modern movement, Dean Russel, wasn’t an anarchist. The dictionary definition of libertarianism doesn’t imply anarchy. It’s said, contrary to all this, that it makes sense to treat anarchy as the essence of libertarianism. What hasn’t been done is to show why it makes sense.